-
-
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians … 1
- UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’ 0
- Slater on Beinart 0
- And we live on… 0
- US official — we went to Israel first 3
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 23
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security … 4
- Aaron David Miller: After a short ‘peace process,’ look … 38
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 713
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 475
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 427
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 413
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 389
- March of the Flags 345
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 323
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 293
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 129
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 110
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
- Annie Robbins: Having recognized its weakness, the US knows that it will be the UN that takes the lead in Syria and...
- Did Israeli Eurovision contestant watch too much Juliano Mer Khamis? (54)
- Annie Robbins: GL, urban dictionary has PEP, just no explanation of progressive except for palestine....
- German Lefty: Annie, it looks like you got infected with the Eurovision virus. Great. The more fans, the better. The...
- US official — we went to Israel first (3)
- traintosiberia: OMG! Why I don”t have that Stockholm Syndrome yet! How long do I have to feign that I have it.
- Annie Robbins: a U.S. official…asked to remain anonymous owing to the sensitive nature of the issue. sensitive?...
- Carllarc: proof of ‘Israel firsters’, for sure
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (23)
- piotr: How many Jews who made aliya were actual refugees from Roman persecution? Thus the “Jew who taunted...
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism (113)
- yourstruly: what was that sound? the special relationship breaking down and the loud and sustained chorus that...
- MHughes976: I’m still a bit uncertain about what R.Brian means by ‘Zionism’: what proposition did...
- yourstruly: given, that the israel’s brutal occupation of palestine is why much of the arab/islamic world hates...
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Today in Palestine
- Annie Robbins
- Alex Kane
- Kate
- Alice Rothchild
- Ahmed Moor
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
Phil it seems not so long ago that you thought that, for there to be real change in the US position, it would have to come from the Jewish community because they are so firmly embedded within the American establishment, and have so much influence. Yesterday, however, after attending the debate between B. Kristol and J. Ben-Ami you wrote of your depair over the prospects for the possibility of such change originating from the Jewish community. Now it seems you are more optimistic, but perhaps see change coming from other quarters.
In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg two years ago, Beinart stated:
"I'm not even asking [Israel] to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state. I'm actually pretty willing to compromise my liberalism for Israel's security and for its status as a Jewish state."
In the more recent interview with Rabbi Michael Lerner he states in addition to a establishment of a Palestinian state,"they [Palestinians] need to have full individual rights within the State of Israel." This, he says, would "constitute a 'completion' of the Zionist project."
Given these two passages, one has to wonder if there has been an evolution in Beinart's thinking over the last two years, or if he is simply telling his interviewer what they want to hear.
In the interview with Rabbi Lerner, Beinart is at least acknowledging that Israel does not have full and equal citizenship for its non-Jewish citizens. All he can offer to support his notion of a democratic Israel then is a tenuous hope that Israel's 'founding principles' will somehow be instated, even as the country moves in exactly the opposite direction.
It's clear to me that Krugman really values his position at the Times where his opinion pieces, based as they are on his expertise in economics, can have real influence on US economic policy and politics. He would have good reason to believe that this influence would be put into jeopardy if he were to wade into the Israel/Palestine issue. It's understandable that he should be reluctant to do so.
Yes, it's wrong and entirely deceitful. But we should be clear, the origin of the mistranslation was with the Islamic Republic News Agency (see link below). They produced the erroneous translation and Israel and the West immediately seized it - just too good an opportunity for propaganda to pass on.
See: link to antiwar.com
Thanks very much for this insightful and moving essay.
The head of the Energy Information Administration testified today before the US Senate that the sanctions on Iran are a contributing factor in driving up gas prices in the US.
With prices having surpassed the all-time seasonal high, US motorists are not happy. As prices rise further still with the summer driving season, we might just start to see some questioning of the wisdom of US policy on Iran.
See: link to nasdaq.com
The 'flaw' is with Beinart who equates 'democracy' with majority rule. In a genuine democracy all people are guaranteed basic rights, are treated equally under law, and are protected against a tyranny of the majority. Within the Green Line Israel is just that for its minorities - a tyranny of the majority.
For any number of reasons, an Israeli attack against Iran would pose a grave risk to Obama's chances for re-election. In particular, high gas prices are already hurting his approval ratings. He would have to be foolish and reckless to give even tacit support for an attack on Iran. And this it would be out of character; if anything, Obama has shown himself to be cautious politician.
The saber rattling helps to keep oil prices high. This may help Iran, but it hurts Obama's chances of re-election thus serving Netanyahu's purposes well.
"With respect to Iran, ... the main impetus for war is coming from the political leadership of Israel and the lobby here, with ... the lobby enjoy[ing] much more influence with Democrats than the neo-cons ever have"
Surely these Democrats are going to take note of the price of gas in the country is hitting new highs (in fact an all time high for this time of year). This is something that really matters to their constituents. And they are also bound to realize that high gas and oil prices are putting Obama's and their own re-elections in serious jeopardy. They must also have some understanding, however dim, that starting a war with Iran is going exacerbate this situation tremendously.
Paul Krugman has pointed out many times, including just today, that Niall Ferguson, whose supposed expertise is in economics history, has been making predictions that have proved consistently flat wrong, and that he has no real understand of economics. To wit:
"The first story is good old crowding out: the government is borrowing, that competes with private borrowers, and that drives rates up. That’s what Niall Ferguson was arguing back when, it’s what Morgan Stanley was arguing when it predicted soaring rates in 2010. To be fair, it’s a reasonable story when the economy is near full employment. But it’s all wrong when the economy is depressed, and especially if it’s in a liquidity trap. And it also involves a fundamental misunderstanding of economics to argue, as Ferguson did, that crowding out can actually deepen a slump."
See: link to krugman.blogs.nytimes.com
and from today: link to krugman.blogs.nytimes.com
Beinart stated: "I'm not even asking it to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state."
Why on earth would giving equal citizenship to the 20% of its population that is not Jewish mean that Israel is no longer a 'Jewish state'? What would it take away from the other 80%? Is the Jewishness of Israel so fragile and tenuous that it needs to constantly suppress its minorities? Why should Israel not be a state for all of its citizens?
At least Beinart admits that Israel discriminates systematically against its minorities. But it's baffling that he would defend such a proposition.
"Panetta? I think Panetta is sloppy and here we are hanging on his words …"
Panetta is speaking for the U.S. military - a very powerful constituency. And the military definitely does not want to go to war with Iran, not after the experience in Iraq.
I agree though that there will be attempts to provoke Iran. Just yesterday another one of its nuclear scientists was assassinated.
The article states: "So Israeli officials were relieved in December when Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, speaking at a conference in Washington, strongly suggested that the United States was determined to stop not only a weapon, but the ability to produce one."
The article doesn't relate what Panetta actually said during a conference that the Israelis were pleased with. However, in his comments on Face The Nation, he was very clear: the U.S. red line is 'do not develop a nuclear weapon'. Sure the U.S. may be 'concerned' that Iran will have the capability of producing a nuclear weapon. But he certainly didn't say that the U.S. was going to do everything to prevent Iran from achieving this capability, which it may already possess.
Leon Pannetta said "And our red line to Iran is: do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.”
I would suggest that the Secretary of Defense has, in fact, moved the goal posts. If Iran could master enrichment, it would effectively acquire the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. Hence Iran was not to be allowed to enrich its own uranium. That used to be the U.S. red line. Now it's just: don't build a nuclear weapon. And Panetta acknowledged that Iran is not doing that. The U.S. has effectively conceded that it won't start a war if Iran sticks to the production of nuclear fuel.
Andrew Exum wrote "Why, first off, has Saudi Arabia not already begun a nuclear energy program? (And don't say "oil," because there is an opportunity cost to Gulf states using oil for their own energy rather than selling it on the open market for $100 a barrel.)"
Exactly. And this same logic applies to Iran. Exum has explained, perhaps inadvertantly, why it is perfectly rational for Iran to pursue a nuclear energy program. In doing so, he has answered those who claim that military ends can be the only purpose of oil-rich Iran's nuclear program.
"The late Christopher Hitchens had such a great reputation for integrity ..."
Right. Well, he wasn't above publishing the contents of a purloined private email written by Juan Cole, without so much as asking for his permission. He did so in a Slate article in 2006.
link to juancole.com
"Would say Rest in Peace but Hitchens did not believe in any kind of spiritual afterlife. "
And he didn't believe in peace either.
I read that line as intended to mean Friedman can be identified as a 'good liberal' (i.e., by NYT standards). I didn't think Phil was saying that he is good journalist.
However, I agree with your point about Barack Obama. I expect that he will be re-elected. However, I doubt very much that he will change course on Israel/Palestine, or anything else for that matter.
The Richard Sale article cited above contains this gem:
'Only a few days ago, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, and CENTCOM chief Gen. James Mattis (who commanded the battle of Fallujah in 2004) told President Obama about his seeming lack of firmness in letting Netanyahu know the "lay of the land" - how deeply the US military was opposed to a strike by Tel Aviv. The president's reply was not what the generals expected. Two US officials close to the exchange say that Obama said that he "had no say over Israel" because "it is a sovereign country." '
So, naturally expecting that the President will act to protect the national interest, top U.S. military figures approach Obama to warn of a grave danger. And the President reacts by effectively lying to them, saying there's nothing he can do.
I hope the generals took careful note of the important lesson in domestic politics that they had demonstrated to them.
This part of Panetta's speech struck me as significant:
"Thirdly, ... we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, striking our ships, striking our military bases. Fourthly – there are economic consequences to that attack – severe economic consequences that could impact a very fragile economy in Europe and a fragile economy here in the United States."
He is explaining here why the U.S. is just not going to attack Iran. The U.S. economy, already on its knees, would be devastated. U.S ships, including aircraft carreirs, could be sunk. That's a scenario that could lead to the retaliatory use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. They are not going to take chances like that, especially when U.S. intelligence assesses that Iran is intent on only developing the capability of producing a nuclear deterrent.
Great catch!.
Note that the Times doesn't say that a factual error had been made which had to be corrected. So this is not much a case of Nakba denial as one of Nakba suppression.
I would say that it's now definitely incumbent on the Times to clarify its editorial policy. Is it their policy to suppress facts and information when complaints are received? It is policy to omit facts that might make some of their readers uncomfortable?
"Rick Perry's flub about how all West Bank residents are Israeli citizens may become reality"
Actually, it was Rick Santorum who said this.
Regardless of Schocken's grasp of U.S. politics, he has a crystal clear view of his own country's intentions with regard to the Palestinians. It's rare to see Israel's objectives expressed so candidly. For me, this is the most powerful passage in the article:
"And with regard to the Palestinians living in [the occupied territories] - those who did not flee or were not expelled - they must be subjected to a harsh regime that will encourage their flight, eventuate in their expulsion, deprive them of their rights, and bring about a situation in which those who remain will not be even second-class citizens, and their fate will be of interest to no one. They will be like the Palestinian refugees of the War of Independence; that is their desired status."
I realize this is somewhat off topic, but in case it's not been cited already, here is passage of interest from a recent speech by Chas Freeman:
"The bankruptcy of American policy on the Israel-Palestine question has led to an effective U.S. decision that it is more important to frustrate Palestinian self-determination than to continue to pay for and participate in many aspects of global governance. This decision reflects the passionate attachment of the U.S. Congress to Israel, which is currently under exceptionally short-sighted, self-destructive, and repellent management. The United States is at odds with almost all of the international community, where the Palestinian cause enjoys overwhelming sympathy and support. If the Palestinians continue to press their case internationally, as most expect them to do, the American exodus from UNESCO promises to be merely the first of many such U.S. withdrawals from United Nations organizations. In some cases, other countries will seek to increase their influence by making up the resulting funding shortfalls; in some they won’t. Without at all intending to do so, the United States is forcing the international community to re-engineer global institutions to function without it or its money and without reference to American views or interests. The failure of U.S. diplomacy in Palestine thus risks translation into a definitive American retreat from global political participation and relevance."
link to mepc.org
"It certainly was close."
Really? It seems more likely to me that this provides a convincing demonstration that the two-state solution can not be achieved. After all, under the 'best deal ever', Israel nevertheless insists on maintaining a series of settlements that penetrate deeply into the West Bank. Not only would these settlements effectively break up Palestine into a collection of separated enclaves, they are also located over major acquifers in the WB.
Needless to say, there's simply no basis here for establishment of a Palestinian state. That would have to be based closely on the '67 lines, or not at all. And Israel would have to confront the settlers, something it has proven itself profoundly incapable of doing.
After the invasion and no WMD were found, a new rationale for the war had to be found. So Friedman wrote on Oct. 30 , 2003 :
"unlike many leftists -- [Baathists] understand exactly what this war is about. They understand that U.S. power is not being used in Iraq for oil, or imperialism ... They understand that this is the most radical-liberal revolutionary war the U.S. has ever launched -- a war of choice to install some democracy in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world."
But before the invasion it was a different matter. This was Friedman on Jan. 5, 2003:
"Is the war that the Bush team is preparing to launch in Iraq really a war for oil? My short answer is yes. Any war we launch in Iraq will certainly be - in part - about oil. To deny that is laughable.
...
Let's cut the nonsense. The primary reason the Bush team is more focused on Saddam [than N. Korea] is because if he were to acquire weapons of mass destruction, it might give him the leverage he has long sought -- not to attack us, but to extend his influence over the world's largest source of oil, the Persian Gulf."
link to nytimes.com
I agree too - it won't happen. An Israeli attack would be ineffectual, and so Israel needs (and wants) the US to do it. But the US is not about to start another war that would send oil prices sky high and really destroy its already fragile economy.
"His saber-rattling in response to the kooky car-salesman plot is Obama's way of propitiating a powerful constituency inside the Democratic Party too"
Really? It seems to me that, intentionally or not, by playing up this kooky accusation to the hilt Obama is fanning the flames of war.
The whole episode really calls into question his judgement. Try to imagine what other governments around the world are thinking of Obama as he tries to use this to push for further sanctions on Iran. They'll come to the conclusion that (a) really believes in the story and is unbalanced, or (b) he's lying to them.
Pablemont is exactly right. Don't hold out hope that Obama will change policies once re-elected. He won't. What we've seen for the last 2.5 years is the 'real' Obama, to the extent that there is such a thing.
"Is Barack Obama the most pro-Israel president in history?"
A better question, in my opinion, would be: Is Obama the most craven, least principaled president in US history?
"Most importantly, though, premature declaration of statehood absolves Israel of any and all responsibility for the destructive legacy of occupation, these become purely Palestinian problems."
Really can't see how this could be true. Palestinian lands, whether or not they are designated a 'state', will remain occupied territories. That's their international legal status now, and it won't change. Neither will Israel's legal obligations as the occupying power.
Liberal democracies emphasize univeralism within their own boundaries. In principle, all citizens of a liberal democracy are accorded equal rights under law. No less important, liberal democracies take measures and establish rights to protect against the tyranny of the majority. As a result, the majority can not vote and put in effect laws that violate the basic rights of some group of unchosen ones within their societies. It must be acknowledged that western democracies do not always live up to these ideals. Neverthessless they are committed to them in principal.
Israel, on the other hand, is committed to no such principles, and it is plainly not a liberal democracy. It was created as a state that accords favoured special status to one group, the Jewish majority. By the same token, it discriminates in law and in the allocation of resources against its minorities. Israel is a democracy only in the sense that it holds votes and has majority rule. But it is an ethnic/religious democracy which makes it qualitatively different than the liberal democracies of the West.
DSK:
“I consider that every Jew in the diaspora, wherever he is, and thus this holds true for France, should contribute to helping Israel. Moreover that is why it is important for Jews to assume political responsibilities. Not everyone in the Jewish community thinks so, but I believe it is necessary. […] To sum it up, in my functions and in my daily life, through all my actions, I do what I can to contribute my modest stone to the construction of the land of Israel”
Passage is drawn from link to counterpunch.org
I've been to two Bob Dylan concerts in recent years and on both occasions he spoke only once and that was strictly limited to identifying the members of his band. And that was it, no hello or good night, or other acknowledgement of the audience. Seems like it was no different in Tel Aviv.
Chet is absolutely right - I was going to mention this.
No organized plan for ethnic cleansing? And you really believe this? Well, it doesn't accord with this passage quoting Ben Gurion before the war:
"Regarding the Galilee, Mr. [Moshe] Sharett already told you that about 100,000 Arabs still now live in the pocket of Galilee. Let us assume that a war breaks out. Then we will be able to cleanse the entire area of Central Galilee, including all its refugees, in one stroke. In this context let me mention some mediators who offered to give us the Galilee without war. What they meant was the populated Galilee. They didn’t offer us the empty Galilee, which we could have only by means of a war. Therefore if a war is extended to cover the whole of Palestine, our greatest gain will be the Galilee. It is because without any special military effort which might imperil other fronts, only by using the troops already assigned for the task, we could accomplish our aim of cleansing the Galilee."
From a protocol of the Government of Israel, translated from Hebrew by Israel Shahak, in "Truth or Myth about Israel? Read between Quotation Marks" by Charley Reese in The Orlando Sentinel (13 June 1999); later published as "What Israeli Historians Say About 1948 Ethnic Cleansing" in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (September 1999).
Overall, I'm very sympathetic to your point of view. However, I think you're mistaken on this count: "For one thing there was little evident material interest in the Iraq war, not when oil concessions are going to Chinese and Russian companies. "
The price of oil and its general availability is much more important to the United States than who happens to get concessions. In addition, the US did not gain the political influence in Iraq that it expected, and so one can not judge intent based on the outcome.
It is clear enough that one of the goals of the war was to see Iraq rehabilitated as a major oil producer, without a hostile Saddam Hussein in power. And there is indeed evidence to support the notion that oil concerns were a factor. They were mentioned explicitly by Bush's chief economic advisor, Lawrence Lindsey, in the run-up to the war:
"When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels of production [each day] to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy." - Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2002.
"But under every plausible scenario, the negative effect is quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war. The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil” which would tend to lower oil prices he [Lindsey] said. - Washington Times, September 19, 2002.
Although his calculations turned out to be very wrong, these statements are understandable in light of the review that was conduct in the lead up to the 2001 Bush-Cheney National Energy Policy. It had plenty to say about Iraq. For example,
"Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade. However, such a policy will be quite costly as this trade-off will encourage Saddam Hussein to boast of his 'victory' against the United States, fuel his ambitions, and potentially strengthen his regime."
"The resulting tight [oil] markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key "swing" producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government." - Baker Institute Study No. 15 “Strategic Energy Policy – Challeges for the 21st Century”, April, 2001, prepared by the Council on Foreign Relations.
The war had many proponents. Some may have been Israel-first neo-conservatives, but that label doesn't apply to all of the important principals (e.g., Cheney, Rumsfeld). In this light, I think it makes most sense to take a broad view of the reasons for the war. It was about power and deepening American hegemony over the Middle East. There were many reasons for this, and Israel may certainly have been uppermost in the minds of some. But it wasn't the only reason.
I think it's a triumph that Abbas and the PA had the courage and fortitude not to cave in to the US and to have this resolution put to a vote. The whole world now has seen that the United States is incompetent to conduct a 'peace process'. The Europeans, in particular, will now know that it is folly to give the US any credibility in this regard. And it is now clear to everyone that this is the case regardless of who is President.
The virtue of this exercise is to bring clarity to the situation by demonstrating emphatically to the world that the United States is incapable of mediating a resolution to the conflict. As it can not bring itself even to act in its own interest, the dysfunctionality of US foreign policy will be plain for all to see.
Neocons have a long displayed a penchant for inventing 'exceptionalisms'. To wit, consider this passage from George Packer's 2003 pre-invasion article explaining the long-forgotten 'Iraqi exceptionalism':
"This bloody history has produced a hopeful new idea. Call it Iraqi exceptionalism. It's the idea that Iraqis have suffered so intensely under a radical nationalist regime that they are by now immune to the anti-Western rhetoric that remains potent in the rest of the Arab world. Iraqis crushed by Saddam's brand of Arab nationalism do not see America and Israel as their eternal enemies. The real enemy is the one within.'
Source: link to query.nytimes.com
Neocons like to pretend that they are 'dreaming of democracy', to borrow George Packer's phrase. But David Frum made it clear in early 2003 what they actually wanted and expected from the Iraq invasion: "An American-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein, - and a replacement of the radical Baathist dictatorship with a new government more closely aligned with the United States - would put America more wholly in charge of the region than any power since the Ottomans, or maybe even the Romans."
I think that another consequence of all this is that the American position in the ME will sink to a new low. I think it's worth recalling that the real purpose of G.W. Bush's efforts at Annapolis were to forge an anti-Iran coalition among 'moderate' Arab states. In only to mollify their own publics, these states demanded of the US that there be a peace process and an end I/P conflict. That process and the US role have now been discredited. With the Tunisian example on their minds, you can bet that 'moderate' Arab states will be more inclined to keep their distance from the US.
I should have added that all Israeli construction in occupied East Jerusalem is already illegal. Any forthcoming resolution would do nothing more than reaffirm this.
Regarding the article 'Obama will not veto UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements', it will be interesting (and surprising) if this turns out to be correct. However, it's not encouraging that in such a short article contains two major inaccuracies.
1) "The sources added that it would be the first time the US does not use its veto against Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Simply not true.
2) "If the Security Council approve such a resolution, all the construction in the East and West Jerusalem will be against the International law ...'
East Jerusalem, yes, West Jerusalem, no.
Not really hard to see why Netanyahu should be furious. His tactic for avoiding to doing anything about the Palestinian issue has been to invoke the threat from Iran. This, he has insisted, is an imminent existential threat, and it must dealt with before anything any kind of accomodation can be considered with Palestinians. Now even the head Mossad says that whatever threat that may exist has been put well off into the future. So it now becomes much harder for Netanyahu to use his favourite diversion to change the conversion.
"And, to accomplish that requires cessation of rockets and all politically motivated violence directed towards Israel, Israelis, even settlers. It requires introduction of responsible Palestinian leadership and community to Israeli society."
Again with conditions on Palestinians. It's alway the Palestinians who have to comply with this or that requirement in the hope that just maybe, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, it might get somewhere. And, by the way, if they are evicted from their homes, or killed in peaceful protests, they just have to take it. And it will be insisted that they have to do so, again, and again, and again. But dear me, there must not ever be any consequences for Israeli society. (Except that they may have to listen to better arguments.)
In truth, it is your prescription that is a hail mary, and it's plainly evident to all that it won't work. The path ahead is clear: continued expansion of settlements, endless colonization, expansion of an apartheid-like regime in the territories.
I think this is well understood as a very real threat in Israel. To wit, Shimon Peres made the point before the British Parliament in November 2008 that Israel would have difficulty removing the settlements in the West Bank without provoking a civil war. See:
link to haaretz.com
If the state of Israel sees the matter in this light, and clearly there is strong evidence that it does, then we can be absolutely certain that it will not remove the settlements, no matter what.
"That no country or the UN came to help Israel is a lesson Israelis remember to this day."
It is not true that no one helped Israel. Under Stalin, the Soviet Union arranged for crucial and decisive aid in the form of armaments to be transferred to Israel from the eastern bloc in Europe, in particular from Czechoslovakia.
Now I will characterize Dershowitz: He is a liar.
"Is the US so devoid of policy imagination that the concept of engaging honestly with Iran is beyond its intellectual reach?"
In a word, yes. Ideological, hamstrung by domestic politics, vindictive and incompetent - that's how I would characterize US foreign policy.
One has to wonder if this a case of advancing dementia. Broder is, after all, quite old (81). Nevertheless, he should be asked to explain himself. We need to hear him flesh out his ideas.
I wonder just what kind of war he actually has in mind. Is it having the US Air Force dropping bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities for a few days? Is that the sort of thing he sees as precipitating a US economic recovery, the oil price notwithstanding? Or does he envision a full scale invasion complete with regime change, i.e., a new quagmire for the US military. Is that how the US turns itself around and Obama gets re-elected?
For our edification, he needs to elaborate on this great idea that he's putting forward.
If you think the NYT offers somewhat slanted explanations (and I agree), consider that here in Canada we have the Canwest newspaper chain, with far and away the largest circulation of dailies across the country. Here is an example of how the status of the settlements is helpfully explained to readers:
"About 500,000 Israelis live in Jewish settlements in West Bank areas that Palestinians consider illegal."
See: link to canada.com
Good post. BTW, it's la chemise, as this is a feminine noun.
From Wikipedia: "Lévy is, with his third wife, a regular fixture in Paris Match magazine, wearing his trademark unbuttoned white shirts and designer suits. Some have attributed to Lévy a reputation for narcissism. One article about him coined the dictum, "God is dead but my hair is perfect." He once said that the discovery of a new shade of grey left him "ecstatic." He is a regular victim of the "pie thrower" Noël Godin, who describes Lévy as "a vain, pontificating dandy".
Israel may well kill thousands of Palestinians, but that will not reverse demongraphic trends. To do that would require killing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. To my mind, this is an implausible scenario - far too many people are watching.
I just don't see much to support the notion that "There must be a Palestinian state, or eventually there will be no Palestine and no Palestinians, if current trends continue.”
What seems more probable is Israel vacating pockets of the West Bank thus creating a set of small, tightly controlled Palestinian enclaves - in effect, a series of open-air prisons, like Gaza. Agha and Malley allude to this scenario in their WaPo article (link to washingtonpost.com
"There must be a Palestinian state, or eventually there will be no Palestine and no Palestinians, if current trends continue."
It would be helpful if you could explain the meaning of this passage. Current demographic trends show an increase in the Palestinian population in Palestine. Are you suggesting then that Israel would resort to expelling the Palestinians? Please clarify.
"The PA is expected to consent to a land swap with Israel: In exchange for giving up 3.9% of the area of the West Bank in which the settlement blocs are located, the Palestinians expect to receive land in the Negev."
Who expects this - the Americans? Why would the Palestinians agree to give up 3 - 9% of some of the most valuable land in the West Bank in exchange for some useless piece of desert?
"Bronner quickly blames the end of the two state solution on the Palestinians, saying that they have repeatedly rejected Israel offers of Partition. I have some sympathy for this view—if I were Palestinian, I would think, if we hold out long enough, we will get a majority Palestinian state—but then wouldn’t you do the same thing in the same dispossessed situation?"
It's important to make a distinction here between the failure to achieve the two-state solution and the present situation which makes this a practical impossibility.
There was a political process, the Oslo Accords, whose goal was realization of a Palestinian state. To blame the Palestinians for the failure of Oslo seems a bit rich given, for example, recently released statements made by Netanyahu that he acted expressly to undermine the Accords when he was prime minister in the 1990s. The Israeli right was always opposed to Oslo and they worked assiduously so that it would fail.
As far as the two-state solution having become a practical impossibility, that is a consequence of the continuous expansion of the Israeli settlements and is entirely the responsibility of the government of Israel.
On the operation to trim the trees, the IDF Major General said "It was on both sides of the border but still within [Israeli] territory. " Does anyone understand what this means? Perhaps it has to do with the IDF saying that both sides of the fence seen in the AP photograph are within Israel. (This was reported in the Globe and Mail:
link to theglobeandmail.com
The following is off topic, but still I think still of interest to this blog.
Richard Fadden, the head of the Canada's spy agency, CSIS, made national news in Canada today when he stated that CSIS believes some Canadian politicans are under the influence of a foreign country. He mentioned that this included two provincial cabinet ministers, as well as people at the municipal level. The province with the two cabinet ministers was not identified, nor was the foreign government, although China is suspected.
As reported: "Fadden described how a few foreign governments are seeking out Canadian politicians from the diaspora of those countries and are offering free trips to the homeland or access to business contacts."
The reaction to Fadden's comments has been one of considerable alarm. In later remarks he stated that "The Service has been investigating and reporting on such threats for many years. Foreign interference is a common occurrence in many countries around the world and has been for decades."
It's clear that CSIS views it as a threat to national security when a foreign government gains influence among the diaspora who are active in politics.
link to cbc.ca
Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Sept 17, 2009:
"I am not among those who believe Iran is an existential issue for Israel."
"Israel is strong, I don't see anyone who could pose an existential threat. "
link to haaretz.com
No oil or gas has been actually been found. These are 'undiscovered' reserves that the US Geological Survey believes might exist. The 122 tcf of gas and 1.7 Bbbl of oil are hypothetical figures - essentially a guess by the USGS on what might be there.
This report in a trade journal 3 days earlier is more precise than the one in Israel Today:
link to offshore-mag.com
It states:
"The Levant basin province in the eastern Mediterranean region could hold 122 tcf of undiscovered, technically recoverable natural gas, according to the US Geological Survey’s first review of the region’s potential."
...
USGS puts the region’s undiscovered, recoverable oil resource at around 1.7 Bbbl. It conducted this review as part of a program directed at estimating the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources of the world’s “priority” petroleum basins.